I personally like the WW system (old & new), where traits are grouped into three categories of three each. This is also done with the Tri-Stat system in Body, Mind, Soul (or their approximations).

As for my own systems for various games I've worked through, I've arrived at a fairly universal set of stats, amongst which a set number of points (say, 27) would be divided:

PHYSICAL
Strength: power and might (damage)
Dexterity: agility and coordination (dodge, weapon aim)
Vigor: stamina and fortitude ("hit points")

MENTAL
Intelligence: learning ability (affects cost of skills)
Perception: sensory awareness (tracking)

SPIRITUAL
Acuity: wit and intuition (affects initiative and magic scores)
Charisma: personality and charm (social trait, affects animal training)
Resolve: willpower and self-control (magic defense, allows for WW-esque "willpower point expenditures")

Players must rank their characters' BODY, MIND, and SOUL, the top-rated group receiving the most points to divide, and each rank below that getting progressively less (let's say, top rank gets 12, second gets 9, last gets 6). I think this helps to create more realistic characters, as well as a more well-rounded and balanced character. For example: Bob can't just put all 27 points in his Strength, Dexterity, and Vigor; instead, he is only allotted 12 for his Barbarian, but he must also place some in his Mental and Spiritual ranks as well.

But as you can see, my Mental traits are lacking in one.... and I'm debating whether a few Spiritual traits aren't actually Mental.... At any rate, what are your trait/trait creation systems? What direction might I take mine in?

Heya :)

Before you get started on creating things like stats, I'm gonna ask you two fairly standard Forgeish type questions:

1. What is your game about?

2. What do the characters do?

Okay, there are just a couple more things I'd like to just ask about :)

When you say:

I think this helps to create more realistic characters

as well as a more well-rounded and balanced character

killacozzy wrote:
But as you can see, my Mental traits are lacking in one.... and I'm debating whether a few Spiritual traits aren't actually Mental.... At any rate, what are your trait/trait creation systems? What direction might I take mine in?

Welcome to the Forge!

I am in total agreement with Troy, above. Before you answer any questions, I want to know why your game is awesome.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. To answer your question, my system has three numbers, called Ice, Light and Zeal/Weariness (the name of the last number changes during play.) Ice represents your power that comes from the external world, Light represents your power that comes from yourself, and Zeal / Weariness represents your will to keep fighting.

This is because I want stories from this game to be tragedies, and all tragedies that are worth a damn* have a protagonist that is conflicted between the self and the external world, and becomes increasingly drained by this.

Point: Know what you want out of the game, then get your numbers to give you that.

* personal opinion. results may vary.

I've arrived at a fairly universal set of stats

1. What is your game about?

2. What do the characters do?

Why are "realistic" characters important to you? Is your game focussing on realism? If so, what are you defining as "realistic" for your game?

What kind of balance are you talking about? Do you mean capable of doing many things well? Do you mean character effectiveness is roughly equal from character to character? Or do you mean that no one stat will be more important than any other stat? Or groups of stats?

So you should really ensure first that your game actually is about something "spiritual", and that something translates into character traits.

Heya,

The simple answer is "it's an adventure game". When I say universal, I mean that it could be used in my game, Cian, which is a game about striving to fullfill your destiny, as well as any science fantasy, modern, or other type of adventure game.

Well, they physically interact in the world with combat, socially interact with non-player characters, they strive to improve their skills, they use magic, they do damage and heal wounds, and a host of other typical fantasy adventure things.

Realism allows for the possibility of human-like failure, which in turn creates suspense and drama. Tales of undefeatable gods may be intriguing to some, but for the most part, without the inclusion of humans within their battles, god-wars would be pointless, as gods can't die. Death is an important aspect of your standard adventure game.

For me, realistic stats say that the traits and their corresponding scores describe an ideal interaction between character and game world which is similar to reality in that: 1) The important things to an adventure tale are covered by all the stats, and

I mean to say that the trio of groups would be the main properties of the character and that, yes, no one group would hold sway over another, in that a fighter would favor the physical, the thinker would favor the mental, and the wizard would favor the spiritual. And in the end, none would be any more powerful than the other.

Fairly universal in that they could be used in a variety of adventure games. That is, your standard, run of the mill adventure games like D&D and any other online fantasy game.

....is a game about striving to fullfill your destiny, as well as any science fantasy, modern, or other type of adventure game.

Hi killacozzy!

From your last post, I'm getting a distinct "generic fantasy" feel. This isn't automatically a bad thing, but it does make it hard to give you any advice.

Reason is, there are already lots of generic fantasy games out there, some of which don't suck. And for every one that has seen the light of day, there are several dozen which only exist as a collection of notes in a ring binder. My own gaming group plays one of these, and it's fun.)

This makes it quite hard for you, as an aspiring game designer and publisher, to make an impact in an already overcrowded market.

(And yes, by posting to this forum, you are now an aspiring publisher! Welcome to the team.)

Now, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try, hell no. But even 'generic' systems play and feel very differently, and one of the keys to successful game design is to realise what sort of an experience you want to deliver and make sure that the rules support that experience.

(in other words, what Ben said.)

For example, the Pool and FATE are both generic systems (they are also both free, and both have forums on this very site.) But they don't play the same, and one of them has about 50 times as many pages as the other.

So, let's try another tack:

(1) Is there anything about your game which isn't "generic"? For example, is there a fixed setting with it's own special story, or is there something that the players can do in this game that they can't do in most other systems?

(2) Is there a particular recurrent theme that you want players to be able to explore with your rules? For example, I checked your other posts and noticed a couple of ideas about destiny (shaping it, and facing it) that were interesting.

Regards,

Doug

PS Apologies if this is a bit of a "rough ride" for you; you're getting a lot of heat for your first ten posts! Believe me when I say that everyone who is critiquing your approach is doing so to encourage you to write a great game, and not to put you off.

Hi. From your posts in the other thread, I can tell you've got passionate ideas of what a fantastical world should look like. Personally, I think it's a shame to let passion go to waste. I hope you'll be able to harness your passion and let it drive you to designing a truly GREAT RPG. Please take the comments below in that vein.

killacozzy wrote:

I've arrived at a fairly universal set of stats

Fairly universal in that they could be used in a variety of adventure games. That is, your standard, run of the mill adventure games like D&D and any other online fantasy game.

Michael S. Miller wrote: In your post, I notice you use "run of the mill" "typical" "as well as ... other type of adventure game" and similar phrases a lot. It seems to me that you're unimpressed by the game you haven't even written yet. If you're not impressed with it, why should I be? Be enthusiastic!

Doug Ruff wrote: (2) Is there a particular recurrent theme that you want players to be able to explore with your rules? For example, I checked your other posts and noticed a couple of ideas about destiny (shaping it, and facing it) that were interesting.

Michael S. Miller wrote: Why should I spend the time to learn about your great setting if I'm only going to end up kicking down dungeon doors and hacking through horrific monsters?

From this discussion of design motivation I'm getting a wibe... why not use Tri-stat or FUDGE or Shadows of Yesterday, to name a few, as your system? If the priority is in the setting and you don't even believe in the system mattering, then isn't system design a waste of time for you?

There are a lot of systems with ready-made answers for all of your questions, systems designed with exacting attention to system design. If your only motivation for system design is to make one because that's how they do games, won't you end up with an uninspired, redundant system? How would it be possible to design a good system without believing in it?

The product will be more honest and sharp if you'll just sell it as what it is - a setting. A Tri-stat logo will certainly help in selling it, too. Or d20. Lots of people go this route, and generally they fare better than if they churned out an useless copy of whatever their favourite system is.

--

That being said, you could make your own system. But in that case I really, really recommend that you ditch the general approach and everything you know about how to design a WW game. It's a waste of time. If you want a game like that, any system of the above will do it. I recommend d20, it's solid and sells better than most.

Instead, proper design will most likely start by really focusing on the kind of play you want to have. From your writing I'm thinking that the setting should be the focus - you should have rules that bring out and focus on the setting in various ways. There are ways to build this kind of rules, but they are NOTHING like you seem to be planning. For an inkling on how to do setting focused system, read the following:
- Dogs in the Vineyard forces players to interpret and reinterpret the setting. Also a masterful genre setting in itself.
- Heroquest has the strongest setting of them all, and it informs play constantly. How, you'll see by playing it.
- Nine Worlds again forces players to judge the setting. And the setting is focused really, really tightly, when it could span everything and the kitchen sink.

The point is that a WW style character development system is a disaster for setting focus, because it rewards player solipsism. By giving characters a large amount of traits you're effectively saying that these are what matters. Your strength matters, your agility matters, your intelligence matters, your soulpower matters... that's all away from the things you really want to do. Now, for some games this is the correct route: I've long thought that the WW games are the most functional when the GM embraces his role as the de facto storyteller, talking to walls, while the players prepare their characters for the next battle. The rules reward players when they play a character-centered game.

The thing is, that style of play is the most typical kind you see in games with strong setting. This is because strong setting is generally interpreted as "only GM has read the setting, only GM will expound on the setting". So the setting actualizes as GM monologue in actual play, and a main feature of play is setting ownership, which always rests squarely on the GM. This is fine if the system has something else for the other players to do, which is the case with WW games and D20. The same thing fails disastrously in freeform games, where the other players might get bored with the GM having control of all the colorful stuff.

Anyway, those remarks hold only if you want a setting focused system. Might be jumping the gun at this point. Why don't you tell us more about the kind of play experience you seek to deliver by the game? That usually helps a great deal...

killacozzy wrote: I'm actually trying to avoid going into the whole of my game so that this stuff can be valuable to someone besides myself. After all, I find it hard to post about stuff I don't find interesting, so I imagine others could find my personal project as uninteresting and non-helpful.

killacozzy wrote: And I imagine it's been done before anyway! LOL.

One Stat you should have should be unrealistic. Something you thought of on your own, making your game much different than anyone elses. Make this unique attribute hook into the game world so tightly that you can't rip them apart.

Maybe your last mental attribute will be based on the Psychic powers you describe as real?

As for my game, I have somewhere around 25 Stats per Character. Only 6 of those are Flexible, as in "traits."

Analogy: The setting in my world would function in the same way the setting for Star Wars does. When fans watch Star Wars, they wish they could become Jedi Knights and learn the Force, smuggle cargo in the Millennium Falcon, and seek out kills as a deadly bounty hunter. It's the inspiration for adventure. And although the archetypes in the movies are trite as most overused cliché, they're trite with pizazz. There's a new look, feel. It's something familiar, yet odd and bizzare.... human, but just slightly alien. I mean, it's the wild, wild west—in space!

Okay, that tells you my mindset but nothing of the game or world.

First, though, the reason I want a new system is because I crave logic and uniformity. This is my realism. If you add 1d20 to your ability+skill against a DC to determine success of a skill, why are there different systems for magic? Memorizing spells??? d20, first off, makes NO SENSE to me. Classes? What happened to character freedom? And why can't a wizard be proficient with armor? Wait, how can you be proficient with ARMOR??? Yes, there are probably both logical and design issues behind these rules. Maybe I'm stupid for disliking these rules. But if I don't understand them initially, then they just don't sit well in general.

I like the WW stuff because the system is uniform, using one dice mechanic all the time, and because logically, the traits used make sense to me. I'm not married to the "trinity of traits" idea, and in fact, my original model just had them grouped as Physical: STR/DEX/VIG/PER and Mental: INT/CHA/ACU/RES (all abbreviations are just the first three letters of the traits, if it wasn't already painfully obvious).

The traditional physical traits of Strength, Dexterity, and Vigor/Stamina/Constitution are quite universal, and I like using them for adventure games. I think at least some mental traits are necessary, since characters may be more able than their players (what if a quiet introvert was incapable of role-playing a suave politician? what about a supergenius played by an idiot?). I like the Wisdom/Acuity/Wit as a magic trait, and I think there should be some kind of Resolve/Willpower trait to act as that drive a hero has in him or her.


Okay, now as far as my game goes, I want the players to create characters that have their own motivations and drives, based on conflicts and beliefs presented in the setting. These characters, or heroes, will then be given a "Destiny", or life goal of significance. These are lofty goals that may be achieved or failed, but serve as the hero's central focus. Of course, these heroes have other objectives, but the Destiny speaks of legendary feats.

Anyway, the heroes then interact in this world much as any protagonist would in his or her environment. These interactions may be mostly physical (fighting battles with enemy kingdoms, hunting deadly animals, searching for artifacts). Some may be mental (learning magic rituals) or social (bartering for valuable goods, seducing the king's daughter). Basically, these heroes are actors in that big, epic tale about.... whatever the GM wants (of course, the creation of stories and the flavor of the setting will be discussed in the book). The players have their heroes act in-character, meaning that even if something seems stupid and arrogant for someone to do (don't open that door!), the hero is, well, a hero. And heroes have their own minds.

Okay, okay. I know. Sounds like a simplistic interpretation of adventure gaming.

The Destiny mechanic I've come up with thus far treats the Destiny trait (yes, that "life goal") as a resource to be acquired, like experience points. They earn a player currency that can be used to improve the hero's skill at interacting with his or her world. How does a player earn his or her hero Destiny???? I'm still working on that. In concept, a destiny point is earned for taking action that advances the Destiny definition. For example: If Anakin Skywalker possessed the Destiny "bring balance to the Force", he would've gained a destiny point for killing the Emperor.

Yes, it's loose now. I have to figure out how to judge "action towards destiny". Also, I want to work into that mechanic the concept of Pride being a barrier to Destiny.... perhaps when a hero acts arrogantly, he or she is blocked from attaining more destiny points. For example: "It's my destiny to bring balance to the Force, so I think I'll kill all the Jedi!" Sorry, Anakin, now you have to wait over 20 years before you can actually balance the Force due to all that arrogant Pride. Karma sucks. Better make good with the Force....

So yeah, what's the purpose of the destiny points? Well, I figure it'll be story-driven; once you attain a certain amount of destiny points, the meeting with that Destiny your hero has defined finally arrives. For example: If Anakin saves his son by killing the Emperor, he will be atoning for past transgressions, allowing for his Pride to be removed and his destiny points to be accrued, his Destiny will come: he can finally balance the Force by sacrificing himself.

Oh yeah, and once a hero meets his or her Destiny, the hero becomes transcends to legend. Time to make a new hero. This represents those fateful sacrifices (that Darth/Anakin example above) and retirements ("what's the point in adventuring once you'd attained the pinnacle of life?").

I debate whether or not another Destiny might be chosen after the first is attained. I guess even if I said no in the rules, people who played the game might ignore it anyway! LOL.

This all make sense? Didn't think so. ;-)

Killacozzy: the more I read the more I'm convinced that it proves a fool's journey for you to design a system at this time. No hostility in this, but numerous points in your writing, starting with your goals and ending with your former experience, indicate that you won't be designing a system with any great value over other commonly available systems. What we have hatching here seems to be a fantasy heartbreaker (about which you can read more in the articles section).

If D20 feels inelegant to you, there are other possibilities. FUDGE is pretty logical, for instance. And nothing says that you have to have a rules system. Players are quite capable of adapting their favourite systems for your game world, if you explicitly instruct them to. Or you could give an extremely simple protosystem, which would suffice for play style where the GM actually controls the plot. For example, rate all traits/abilities/whatever forces on a scale from 1 to 10 without creating a definite list of what they should be, and instruct the GM to roll and add for any conflicts. No hassle,and extremely easy to convert to other systems.

--

However, if you're wedded to the idea of making your own system... go and read Heroquest, and learn from it. It's currently clearly the best system for generic fantasy adventure, head and shoulders above any other system. Read that, and learn from it. After that, go and read Shadows of Yesterday. It's another iteration of similar ideas, and again much better than Exalted. Play both games. Actually, use your own world and play both games in it.

Next, don't hurry about the system design. Ideally you will learn numerous things about what roleplaying is, and they will change your design. Remember that good design may take time. We're talking years here. In my opinion, you're not ready yet to design knowledgeably. Conseited to say, but that's how I call it.

--

If you don't have the patience to learn, and don't want to use another's system, I suggest taking the best system you know (Storyteller?) and following it closely. Actually, start by using exactly that system. Only make the changes you need to use it with your own game world. Then playtest it. Write down any things that bother you. Change those. Play more. Change more. This way you will slowly deviate from the original system. When you're ready, change the die-mechanic (if you didn't already) to something else, so that your system will look different to the untrained eye.

In this way you get a system that's just as good or bad as the original system you used, assuming that the original system fits at all with your design goals. This is also the method that's used in 80% of rpg design generally, so you're not alone. What's best, you don't really need to know anything about rpg design this way.

Note that this latter method is what you seem to already be doing. You have the Storyteller system, which you're in process of fiddling with, changing some attributes and such. I suggest that you shouldn't get stuck in choosing traits, but rather should get to playing your world with the system as soon as possible. Many things will become evident through play, and you can make necessary changes then.

Heya,

I won't be as dour as my good friend, Euro. :) But I really do recomend that you grab some cheap and/or free RPGs out there that are not main-stream games and see what they have to offer. Here's a link to many free RPGs. Some good, some not so, all capable of teaching you something: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/resources/index.php?category=6

I'd like to focus on this:

The Destiny mechanic I've come up with thus far treats the Destiny trait (yes, that "life goal") as a resource to be acquired, like experience points. They earn a player currency that can be used to improve the hero's skill at interacting with his or her world. How does a player earn his or her hero Destiny???? I'm still working on that. In concept, a destiny point is earned for taking action that advances the Destiny definition. For example: If Anakin Skywalker possessed the Destiny "bring balance to the Force", he would've gained a destiny point for killing the Emperor.

If Destiny really is the point (which I kinda doubt; it seems to me that it's definitely secondary to all this setting material), there are a number of good games to grab:

Matt Snyder is the King of Destiny, insofar as all his games include a functional, explicit and central way for the players to manipulate plot in a manner identical to character destiny, even when it's not explicitly called that.
- Dust Devils has the best "issue" mechanic ever, despite it's relative age. It's trivial to see how the Devil in the game serves as character destiny and player thematic commitment at the same time.
- Nine Worlds has an issue mechanic, too. It's real-time redefinable, multipolar, central to the reward system and so on. The Muses are again player commitment combined, which translates into character destiny.

Other games with essentially similar stuff are Riddle of Steel, Polaris (OK, not so similar, but cool still) and Shadows of Yesterday. The common thing between these is that the character's destiny is equated with the player's goals. So a player wants to tell a story about alcoholism, he grabs the destiny of "Dies because of whisky". Then the destiny (or whatever, depends on the game) will help him tell a story about accepting or denying the stuff, or rewards him when he does, or something like that. There are different versions of the idea, but they're best appreciated by looking at the games. The point is, destiny in these games is a tool of plot control.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: If Destiny really is the point (which I kinda doubt; it seems to me that it's definitely secondary to all this setting material)

Eero Tuovinen wrote: I'm convinced that it proves a fool's journey for you to design a system at this time

Troy_Costisick wrote: And rather than an accumulation of points, why not a sliding scale that can vacillate back and forth depending on player action?

Two quick comments:

killacozzy wrote: Yeah, maybe, but I'm trying to make a game I would play, which means probably not contributing "great value" to the gaming community.

Heya,

I've been applying my own "litmus test" of reality to the concept of Destiny as I've presented it, asking myself to assign a Destiny to various characters in popular story (basically, the movies), seeing if the whole "destiny point/Pride" thing would hold up. Does the character have an easily identifiable Destiny that he or she strives to achieve? How does their Pride affect the outcome? Does this mean that all Destinies must be unselfish? I'm still playing with the idea.

Killacozzy, have you read Aria or Seventh Sea?

killacozzy wrote:
This is mostly true. But even when I go back and read old write-ups of the system, I've always focused my game on multidimensionality. As I define this, the lack of a set "good" or "bad" guy in terms of gamewide morality hurts the game, as there is no central game focus, but helps it, as it removes predetermined roles of morality and allows the players to choose those roles for themselves, based on player interpretation of the setting or character perspective. And as for that sense of urgency I always needed to throw in (that central focus for the game to have life), though my previous efforts were misdirected, I think the idea of Destiny can solve both issues ideal-wise and mechanics-wise.

Unfortunantly, I think it may be impossible for you to make your own game that is fully original and geared to your current ideas.

Its not that you aren't capable, but its that you are blinded by other games. Honestly, I've never played an RPG other than one I've created. Never. Not D&D, not any RPG on the Forge, None. Infact, for about 2-3 years of playing RPGs I've designed, I had no idea what an RPG was.

In turn, when I created an RPG it is vastly different than most RPGs, and adheres to my goals extremely well.

But you have played another game, and the such. So I think instead of cluttering your mind with more games, go read the RPG Theory section in and out. Then forget everything you learned from other RPGs. I do not believe that the methodology of reading other games and picking and choosing their pieces that suits you will create the result you desire.

After you have learned about various RPG thoughts, then make a character. Make a character before you have any rules, traits, anything. Design that character in a way you want all your other characters to be designed. Then, make rules, test play with a few close friends, modify, test, modify, test, etc etc untill you are satisfied.

The way I read you, you seem to have a dislike for d20 type games (I do as well), but they are the most "popular" with game designers. You've played D20, you dislike it, you want to break the mold, but you are bound by the very thoughts and limiations of the D20 system.

This is why I think the best RPG designers are little kids :D

To address contracycle and FzGhouL simultaneously, I don't really play any RPGs. I know, I know, it sounds horrible and sacrilegious.

Most of my concepts of RPGs come from "make-believe" games of my youth and my experience in both the realms of theatre and writing. My desire for a Simulationist experience is from those childhood games of "Ninja Turtles Be-Them", as my group called it. You'd hear "Raphael doesn't act like that!" and "No, Leonardo always hits the Shredder last!" See, at one point, make-believe is about portraying a role truthfully. This is also the theatre perspective. You act like the character would act, period. Even in improvizational theatre, you act like the character, not yourself. You act out of the character's desire, not yours. Unfortunately, the true form of make-believe always loses out to ego 20-minutes later when everyone's arguing over who got punched in the face and died and who has Donatello's bo-staff.

Now from my writing and theatre backgrounds come the standard idea of plot. Three-act structure, to me, is present even in the Shakespearean five-act structure. There's the explanation of the story, the stuff that happens that leads to, the dramatic climax when the results of the stuff are seen. Yeah, that's simplified, but that's the meat. You can actually break down everything into that structure, even the smaller events in the so-called Rising Action segment of the structure.

"Yeah, yeah, I knew that."

First off, there must be a GM and not a roundtable of storytellers. Why? Because I, as a player, have the responsibility of portraying my character, which means I must try to win as my character sees it, and in order for me to win, there must be a loser. But if I'm acting out my character's best interest, how can I be acting in the story's best interest? At that, can I, as role-player, even know there's a story at all? In my model, these roles, actor and director, role-player and storyteller/GM are different.

Secondly, I define that the purpose of role-playing itself is the same as watching an engaging film. If a movie really grabs you, you are immersed in the imaginary world. You stop thinking about plotlines. You don't think about "it's only a movie". You get angry at the bad guys for being despicable. You cry when the lovers are reunited. You take the journey with them. Subconsciously, we might be aware of the structures of drama, but in effect, we become the character and forget about the story. The heroes become alive, and the "drama" becomes a real circumstance to be dealt with. It's no longer a story. It grows beyond that. This is my definition of what a role-playing experience should be like.

Third, the thing is, for what I would consider a good and exciting game to play, the GM couldn't possibly plot out an epic saga. That wouldn't be fun anyway, because the thing that separates good role-playing experiences from bad ones is that the opportunity to really immerse yourself in the freedom of choice your character has. If there's a truly linear plotline with definite plot points, the world is no longer immersive. You realize there's a movie because you have no freedom to play the role. This is not to say that planning shouldn't go into GMing.... obviously, for a STORYTELLER to tell a STORY, there has to be a sense of what's going to happen. What I'm saying is this: For Destiny, it would be impossible and undesirable to attempt and plot out the three-act drama of the predestination. It would hinder freedom of character, primarily by pigeon-holing in linear structure, and secondarily by creating a time-line or event chart for which to plot the major drama.

Now, I've begun to entertain the notion of setting up, say, 5 plot points on the path to Destiny.... like the 5 things Bob has to do before he can rule the world.
1. move out of mom's basement
2. get money or resources
3. and so on.... and so forth....
But I wonder if that would just expedite the process of achieving Destiny.... I mean, if all I have to do are these five things, then my character knows what he has to do to rule the world. Things, realistically, aren't so cut and dry. I want an ambiguous sense of drive for the characters so they can realistically do other things besides try to become a fireman (you know, date women, hang out with friends), but then again, I don't want it to just become an unattainable or intangible dream ("I wanna become Superman!") just because of my desire to preserve the "mystery" of what life holds in store for the characters. I don't want to give the characters any more information than necessary about their purpose in life, but at the same time, by not giving enough information about it, does the character not realize he or she is a hero?

I dunno. I probably switched topics midway through that essay. Bare with me!

Ok, sounds alot better now actually. You seem very inspired and pretty much know what you want. Now, you have your mindset and goals pretty much defined for us, it'll be easier to ask questions.

For Conflict mechanics, what is your priority? Do you want it to be realistic, random, unique, equal for ever character, tactical, etc (not mutually exclusive).

You pretty much opened this thread with the tri-stat idea, but you should probably start over in that aspect. Unless you can define it espicially well.

I think you need to focus on making a system that works for your goals, rather than a system that is totally realistic in itself.

I want characters to be able to fail, fail, and then die. But I also want characters to be able to change the world through Destiny. In this, realism is definitely important (a stab in the heart and still walking?), but realism usually gets bogged down with rules.

My priority is a simple system with a small range of rating (poor-good-gooder-goodest) that uses d6, but still retains a sense of realism. I want a decent enough range of ability that you don't just have a bunch of average characters running around with no differentiation between of strength of a bodybuilder and role-playing game designer, role-playing game designer and infant child, infant child and porn star.... you get the picture.

Currently, my standing system uses 1-6 ratings. Abilities (the stats in discussion) and skills (specializations of each ability) are each rated on this scale, which actually emphasizes the descriptive adjective over number (this number is always written in parentheses after the adjective, even within the text of the book). In fact, the only reason I'm using numbers at all is because the face of the dice have numbers of pips.
Poor (1)
Average (2)
Good (3)
Excellent (4)
Amazing (5)
Superb (6+)
Task resolution involves combining an applicable ability and skill, and then rolling 2d6. These numbers are combined and checked against a difficulty number set for the action.

I figure this mechanic and system allows for randomness and trait capabilities both altering the outcome of actions.

I need it to be simple but elegant.

Heya,

Now, I've begun to entertain the notion of setting up, say, 5 plot points on the path to Destiny.... like the 5 things Bob has to do before he can rule the world.
1. move out of mom's basement
2. get money or resources
3. and so on.... and so forth....
But I wonder if that would just expedite the process of achieving Destiny.... I mean, if all I have to do are these five things, then my character knows what he has to do to rule the world. Things, realistically, aren't so cut and dry. I want an ambiguous sense of drive for the characters so they can realistically do other things besides try to become a fireman (you know, date women, hang out with friends), but then again, I don't want it to just become an unattainable or intangible dream ("I wanna become Superman!") just because of my desire to preserve the "mystery" of what life holds in store for the characters. I don't want to give the characters any more information than necessary about their purpose in life, but at the same time, by not giving enough information about it, does the character not realize he or she is a hero?

Hi, K (BTW, what's your real name?)

Thanks for sticking this out. I know it's been a rough couple days for you.

Just a few quick comments:

(1) I was very intrigued by the stuff you started about your "Ninja Turtles Be-Them" game. The insight you have gleaned from can be made into a game that no one else in all the world can write but you.

(2) Reading over your desires for "realism", "fail and die" "being your character" and the desire for "drama" continually trigger in my head: "This guy (?) really needs to play Burning Wheel." I think it would be a good fit for you.

(3) It seems to me that you're stuck in the grip of something that we like to call The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. It's a logical trap that all of us here have grappled with. I know I have, and still do. It's a powerful beast, and hard to slay. As defined in the glossary:

Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, the

"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other. See Narrativism: Story Now.

I figure this mechanic and system allows for randomness and trait capabilities both altering the outcome of actions.

Michael S. Miller wrote: Hi, K (BTW, what's your real name?)

Thanks for sticking this out. I know it's been a rough couple days for you.

(3) It seems to me that you're stuck in the grip of something that we like to call The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. It's a logical trap that all of us here have grappled with. I know I have, and still do. It's a powerful beast, and hard to slay. As defined in the glossary:

Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, the

"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other. See Narrativism: Story Now.

Why do you want "randomness" and "trait capabilities" to play any role in the outcome of actions? Your design goals that you stated so eloquently above all deal with being inside the head of the character. With knowing their situation on such a gut level that you ache for the consequences they suffer. It seems to me that "consequences" and "motivation" are the kind of thing you'd want in your resolution.

Troy_Costisick wrote: You don't need to enumerate it exactly. Just give 5 to 7 broad catagories that the player must complete 1-3 feats in order to advance towards their Destiny. I'll be very interested to see how you handle that.

Only problem is that then there's a tangible and clear definition to achieving an end point. By breaking the big goal into mini-goals, it almost makes the big picture smaller. For example: If Bob consciously tried to take over the world, it'd happen soon enough. He just has to go down the list and tackle each task. If he had no "map" in getting to his destiny, the path would be more perilous, bumpy, and uncertain—like life.

Now, I'm not saying a character couldn't have such broken down goals, I just think it'd be detrimental to define them as part of the system. I mean, Bob knows he's not going to move out of his basement and rule the world. He knows he's gotta do other stuff in the meantime. But the player gives Bob, as a character, a list of things "to do" to become dominator of the globe, doesn't that seem like the player, and therefore by extension the character, would have too much divine knowledge of his destiny? Maybe I'm being obtuse.... ??

OliverTheMerc wrote: I think a hybrid approach to this could be really cool. Basically, you have a big goal like "Take Over the World" but would also be able to specify a few current sub-goals under the umbrella of the bigger goal. That way the players get to feel like they are making progress, and it still keeps the large scale goal with no clear end in sight. Furthermore, since the subgoals are short term they would change rapidly enough that it would probably avoid the recipe feeling of having a big master list of tasks from the start.

He knows he's gotta do other stuff in the meantime. But the player gives Bob, as a character, a list of things "to do" to become dominator of the globe, doesn't that seem like the player, and therefore by extension the character, would have too much divine knowledge of his destiny?

The thing about this Destiny goal is that you don't complete it in 10 sessions. Or 20. In fact, you may never complete it until the final session before you gaming group breaks apart. The idea behind this trait is to give a sense of motion to what would ordinarily be motionless. It's like "Star Trek: Voyager": the goal is getting home, but that's just the background motif. The real story is the adventures that occur while getting home. And sometimes, the adventures are about getting home faster. It's like the "X-Files": the agents want to prove the existence of ETs, but really, the show concerned itself with various adventures, some even pertaining to that ultimate story of the reality of aliens. Does this sound convoluted?

To clarify the concepts I think I'm working with:
1) Destiny will be defined as an idealistic goal to be achieved.
2) Pride will be defined as the character flaw (ego) that prevents the realization of this ideal.

Thus, no longer would "take over the world" be a suitable Destiny. Instead the "take over the world" mindset (a flawwed one) would be the result of Pride corrupting Destiny: placing some kind of ego-play before the ideal. For example: Anakin Skywalker was going to bring balance to the Force, a lofty Destiny. But once ego got in the way—wanting to control life and death, craving a clearly distorted power—we was unable to complete his Destiny. He "switched" tracks. His Pride told him that he was the balance of the Force. Does this make sense and correspond to characters in general?

I liked that suggestion about the "switching" from Destiny to Pride based on character actions.... I'd quote it, but for some reason, I can't find it at the moment.... but thanks for that idea.

I want to have a universal character model with this destiny concept so that it's not contrived and can be tested against any character you can come up with, real or fictional. I want to capture something real and easily identifiable in this system, not just haughty concepts that only apply sometimes or when I twist the logic. I'll mull it over some more, though, and come up with further developments.

A quick question: Do you think that the universal character necessarily has to have a Pride trait, a tragic flaw? I wonder if some heroes lack a negative element, and the only thing preventing the realization of Destiny is opposing influence. And beyond that, does the universal character possess a Destiny, that ideal goal?

The thing about this Destiny goal is that you don't complete it in 10 sessions. Or 20. In fact, you may never complete it until the final session before you gaming group breaks apart. The idea behind this trait is to give a sense of motion to what would ordinarily be motionless. It's like "Star Trek: Voyager": the goal is getting home, but that's just the background motif. The real story is the adventures that occur while getting home.

Hi, Anthony.

killacozzy wrote: I figure characters in the "group" all have a reason to band together, lest why band together?

If hero goes off path, GOD points him in the right direction. GOD still gives hero freedom.... he can do anything.

Koko likes drugs, but his destiny definitely has nothing to do with drugs (being the leader of a great ministry). Koko, liking drugs a little too much, acts counterproductive to his destiny, and therefore requires a little nudge from GOD in the terms of an adventure to get him off the smack.

because I see "acting" and "role-playing" as doing what is in the best interest of the character portrayed. If I'm a shady thief, I don't crave getting caught.... I want to get away with the stolen art! Which is why I always figured I'd use standard dice-rolling task resolution: it's non-biased and somewhat random.

As for incorporating "consequences" and "motivation" into the resolution, I couldn't even begin to imagine such a system. I want quick results so that the story can be told instead of fretting over interpretive rules. Do any existing systems make use of this type of resolution?

The thing about this Destiny goal is that you don't complete it in 10 sessions. Or 20. In fact, you may never complete it until the final session before you gaming group breaks apart.

Michael S. Miller wrote: Why should all the PCs band together? Why do they have to be on the "same team?" Why do they even have to be in the same story all the time? Why can't they be foils for one another? Does that bring you closer to your Vision for the game, or is it just because you think "that's what role-playing games are supposed to do?"

So the player can have his character do anything he wants, as long as the GM thinks it's the right thing? That sounds like less than "anything." That sounds like the GM's running the show.

Lets talk about Koko's player for a minute, we'll call him Kevin. It's Kevin who decides that Koko has the drug problem, right? Is it also Kevin that decides that Koko has this great Destiny to lead a great ministry? If so, why does Kevin put the drug problem as an obstacle in Koko's path? I know why I might do something like that, but I'm interested to see what you think.

You started off talking about "motivation" and ended up talking about "non-biased and random" as if they're the same thing. They're not.

Is your game conveying the message that we make our own destiny through our competencies?

It all focuses on what your game is about.

OliverTheMerc wrote: I guess I misunderstood what you meant by destiny. Given that you want it to serve like the "background" to a player's story; I agree that sub goals (sub-destinies?) probably aren't necessary. However, it is my understanding that you want the character's destiny to figure prominently in their story. Therefore, it seems to me that the larger and more nebulous you make their Destiny, the more difficult it could be to tie in to the specific actions the character is taking at any given time. The above statement may seem strange, but it has been my experience that the more general something is, the more time you spend trying to figure out if it applies. However, if something is pretty specific it is usually clear if it applies in a given situation.

Here's the new thread in the Theory forum.